Philadelphia abortion doctor accused of murdering patient, newborns

[AOII Angel]

Abortion Clinics ARE regulated. Licenses are required. They have regulations they must follow. The problem here is that the Department of Health didn't follow up with complaints. I think Drole's point is that if you aren't going to follow the regulations you have already set up, what's the point in legislating new rules, which may further restrict access, if your original rules aren't being followed in the first place? Safe practices can be followed just like in regular doctors' offices that perform procedures. I perform biopsies everyday in my office. The Health Department was just here today checking us out. Further intrusion on the Doctor/Patient relationship is not needed. However, I expect that reports of major complications, much less deaths due to in office procedures should prompt a swift investigation.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Abortion Clinics ARE regulated. Licenses are required. They have regulations they must follow. The problem here is that the Department of Health didn't follow up with complaints. I think Drole's point is that if you aren't going to follow the regulations you have already set up, what's the point in legislating new rules, which may further restrict access, if your original rules aren't being followed in the first place? Safe practices can be followed just like in regular doctors' offices that perform procedures. I perform biopsies everyday in my office. The Health Department was just here today checking us out. Further intrusion on the Doctor/Patient relationship is not needed. However, I expect that reports of major complications, much less deaths due to in office procedures should prompt a swift investigation.

You beat me, but this. Unless the current standards when upheld are truly unsafe, I wouldn't advocate making them more restrictive.

[SWTXBelle]

DF - the eyebrow waxing is actually a better example than it might first appear. The rationale behind the regulations of cosmetology is often medical - you can hurt someone, so it is in the interest of the state to regulate it. Currently in Texas there is a debate about threading - cosmetologists argue that it must be done only in licensed facilities, while many argue that because the potential for injury is so slight it is fine to have it done in, for example, malls.
I'd say comparing abortion regulations to those applied to flu shots is more of a stretch. Flu shots have no demonstrated risk that would necessitate they only be given in hospitals. Again, we need firm data.
I don't buy the "ultrasounds are only a delaying tactic" argument. The stage of development does impact what can and can't medically be done. Informed decision is a component of every surgical procedure - if women are to make a choice, shouldn't they have as much information as possible? (rhetorical question) And just because a woman might have an emotional response doesn't mean she shouldn't still understand exactly what will happen in an operation. I dealt with a breast cancer scare - my reaction was VERY emotional, but I still had to deal with the realities of the situation and the possible procedures. I needed all the information in order to make an informed choice. That's true for all medical decisions.
Even Roe v. Wade distinguishes between the three trimesters in terms of balancing the rights of a pregnant woman and the rights of the fetus. I think we see this recognition in the fact that studies have shown a higher percentage of support for abortion on demand in the first trimester than the second or third.
It seems to me that viability is a common accepted line of demarcation - not for the black/white, abortion-on-demand-until-the-baby-crowns camp and the no-abortion-ever-no-matter-what crowds, admittedly. The problem of course is that viability is much earlier today than back in 1979.A former student had a daughter who weighed 1 1/2 lbs., 4 months early. She and the baby are now home and the baby is doing very well.

I think one thing we can agree on is that without objective data it is hard to argue convincingly for EITHER side of increased/decreased regulation. (Look at me underailing the thread). Perhaps this horrific incident can result in a close look at the data so the public CAN decide whether or not increased regulation, or a revamping of enforcement , is necessary.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

DF - the eyebrow waxing is actually a better example than it might first appear. The rationale behind the regulations of cosmetology is often medical - you can hurt someone, so it is in the interest of the state to regulate it. Currently in Texas there is a debate about threading - cosmetologists argue that it must be done only in licensed facilities, while many argue that because the potential for injury is so slight it is fine to have it done in, for example, malls.
I'd say comparing abortion regulations to those applied to flu shots is more of a stretch. Flu shots have no demonstrated risk that would necessitate they only be given in hospitals. Again, we need firm data.

I'm not denying that eyebrow waxing doesn't require some safety, but you missed that I wasn't comparing flu shots to abortions, I was pointing out that flu shots and surgeries are regulated entirely differently based on medical safety and needs. Abortion, both medical and surgical, should be regulated to that same standard, it should not have increased regulation because of an extraordinary case or because of political reasons.

I don't buy the "ultrasounds are only a delaying tactic" argument. The stage of development does impact what can and can't medically be done. Informed decision is a component of every surgical procedure - if women are to make a choice, shouldn't they have as much information as possible? (rhetorical question)

The laws require that the doctor show a woman the ultrasound, not that they do an ultrasound for the purposes of the procedure. You're reading what I'm saying wrong. And rhetorical or no, when you pass a law requiring a woman to see her ultrasounds prior to abortion, you don't care about her informed consent. That's not informed consent, that's intentional, paternalistic, misogynistic, manipulation of someone trying to get a medical procedure that you disagree with. No one passes a law requiring the patient to watch their own colonoscopy prior to a biopsy or surgery on their colon, right?

And just because a woman might have an emotional response doesn't mean she shouldn't still understand exactly what will happen in an operation. I dealt with a breast cancer scare - my reaction was VERY emotional, but I still had to deal with the realities of the situation and the possible procedures. I needed all the information in order to make an informed choice. That's true for all medical decisions.

Were you required to view pictures of your breasts? Or (with some creative license to mirror the emotional effect of ultrasounds) were you required to view a sketch of what your chest might look like with a double mastectomy? If you think there isn't the intent to influence a woman's choices not an intent to inform behind those laws then you're missing something.

Even Roe v. Wade distinguishes between the three trimesters in terms of balancing the rights of a pregnant woman and the rights of the fetus. I think we see this recognition in the fact that studies have shown a higher percentage of support for abortion on demand in the first trimester than the second or third.
It seems to me that viability is a common accepted line of demarcation - not for the black/white, abortion-on-demand-until-the-baby-crowns camp and the no-abortion-ever-no-matter-what crowds, admittedly. The problem of course is that viability is much earlier today than back in 1979.A former student had a daughter who weighed 1 1/2 lbs., 4 months early. She and the baby are now home and the baby is doing very well.

Thing is, that such young infants are still the exception rather than the rule. That's why though people may say "oh yes third trimester is wrong" there's no hard and fast line. Again this ignores when the abortion is sought due to genetic/medical problems that would result in a stillbirth or an infant dying shortly after birth.

I think one thing we can agree on is that without objective data it is hard to argue convincingly for EITHER side of increased/decreased regulation. (Look at me underailing the thread). Perhaps this horrific incident can result in a close look at the data so the public CAN decide whether or not increased regulation, or a revamping of enforcement , is necessary.

Honestly I'd rather it not be the public, but the medical profession, that's just me though.